I have been praying for discretion for the past few years, desperately trying to keep my mouth shut and keyboard silent. I have read social media posts excoriating one side or the other in this internecine battle for what I originally believed was the soul of the United Methodist Church. Clergy and laity alike have demonstrated an amazing capacity for brutal vindictiveness and an appetite for vengeance I never would have imagined just a few short years ago. What I have come to believe today is that, regardless of an individual’s stance on the maelstrom which the inclusiveness debate has become, there is nothing of God in the arguments, anywhere.

I am an Associate Member of the Western PA United Methodist Conference, which means that I have not been required to respond to the precise language of the ordination vows taken by every elder in full connection. Nonetheless, I have always interpreted my vows made as a Licensed Local Pastor and as an Associate Member to be no less stringent and binding on me. I agreed that I would, as a condition of my licensing and availability for appointment, uphold the Book of Discipline of the UMC; that I would conduct myself with the same professionalism expected of any clergy or laity in a leadership position; and I would advocate for the social principles of the UMC, as I have been called to do. These things I have done, to the best of my ability, for the eight years I have been serving churches as Pastor.

Those covenants I entered into are intended to hold me accountable to both God and the institution itself. Such has been my understanding of the Methodist model’s success as a connectional denomination. We took each other at our word that we would be disciplined disciples in all church-related matters, and we agreed to abide by the parliamentary process outlined in the Book of Discipline for introducing and settling changes to the BOD. I have repeatedly searched for any Licensed Local Pastor or Associate Member loopholes that would invalidate the commitments I made in being appointed to a congregation. I have not found any. A cursory review of the expectations for ordination came to the same result – I cannot locate anything that grants individual discretionary privilege where adherence to the BOD is concerned.

So, I have followed the rules about not wearing any of the stoles gifted me by unwitting friends. I have been borderline OCD about the rules for conducting administrative meetings and about what is acceptable practice in administering the sacraments. I met all the requirements spelled out for me when accepting the Licensed Local Pastor (and Associate Member) call. I completed Course of Study, I met with my mentor(s) as prescribed and submitted the necessary documentary evidence, and I got my license renewed and signed each year that I have been responsible for doing so. I have not (as of yet) refused any committee post I have been asked to assume, whether at the district or conference level. I have, in short, sought to be worthy of the trust placed in me by two bishops and five district superintendents.

For me, the issue tearing at the fabric of the denomination is not my theology being in conflict with the boundless expansion of the definition of inclusiveness, but how to reconcile my slavish “good-boy” piety with a leadership hierarchy that has inconsistent enforcement of the Book of Discipline, until, that is, it serves their larger purpose. Either the standards apply to everyone, or they apply to no one. That is the truest expression of the reason for having doctrinal standards in the first place – they establish a level playing field. But the trust required to stay in the painted lines of that field has been broken – irrevocably.

Our much heralded “connectionalism” only works when all the players not only agree to practice accountability – they must actually practice it. Accountability is different from responsibility, because the latter is focused on who performs a unit of work and the former is about who owns the outcome of that work. The Council of Bishops of the UMC have set about being the most obvious actors of disobedience to the BOD by elevating to the station of bishop a married lesbian pastor, in blatant contravention of unambiguous restrictions already contained within the denomination’s set of rules. It would seem that there is a paucity of accountable behavior among the ranks of the Council of Bishops, and it exists whether you support LGBTQ+ inclusion or rail against it. Bishop Karen Oliveto is the evidence, like it or not.

Let me be clear about one thing – it is not my intention nor my desire to demonize Bishop Oliveto as the sole cause of our denominational turmoil. No one person has that kind of power. The bishop was a trial balloon that caused a groundswell. She might have been a nominal distraction had the COB lived up to the letter and spirit of the Book of Discipline as it pertains to human sexuality. Instead, they used the personal courage of Rev. Oliveto and her spouse to demonstrate just how little respect they have for those who do not share their worldview. I interpret their actions (or lack thereof) as a clear, declarative statement of defiance that created the environment for all sorts of subsequent departures from what had been accepted polity, teachings, and common sense. How else do you think we could have given legitimacy to a pastor who conducts worship in drag? It was funny in “The Birdcage,” but not in the pulpit. It is a prime example of how the scope of inclusion continues to be redefined daily. My anxiety about staying in the United Methodist Church as a traditionalist comes from the apparent unwillingness of the progressive wing of the church to establish an upper limit to their definition of inclusion. What can we expect next? Rehabilitated pedophiles serving as Youth Group leaders? Do not roll your eyes, dear reader—understand that there will be no end to the gerrymandering of acceptable boundaries.

The greatest threat to the people called Methodist is the permanent damage done to the Methodist body of Christ. While we sue and counter-sue one another in order to hold onto our power, our pensions, and our property, we have shown the world that Methodism as a manner of Christian living is collapsing under the weight of its own self-righteousness. The discord over inclusiveness is thought to be the driver for the schism, but it is misleading to make such claims. The disease of intolerance is not because one side or the other is more justified in claiming the moral high ground. The real culprit is our cultural obsession with sin. Not gay sin or straight sin – just sin, in whatever variety the enemy tempts us. The epic spiritual warfare we are engaged in is driven by our preoccupation with each other’s sin, while someone pointing out our sins is considered to be nothing more than a smoke screen to distract us from the wretched sin of the other fellow. The wheels on the bus go round and round.

I am certainly not a theologian. I have not earned a Master of Divinity degree, nor could I ever be mistaken for a biblical scholar. I have spent the bulk of my working life in leadership positions across diverse sectors. I published two books on management practices prior to finally answering God’s relentless call. So, if you are salivating over the chance to belittle or invalidate my observations, knock yourself out. You will, instead, help to make my point about the intolerance of the combative zealots.

Look, there are no saints in this battle. We have all seen injurious behavior from both camps. The righteous indignation that is the only tune any of us knows by heart is thick enough to cut with a knife. I wish I were smart enough to offer a salve for these self-inflicted wounds, because that which has stood in the way of a peaceful separation is nothing more than tactical maneuvering to protect assets. No rational person would want to continue having the same argument over and over again, so the only motivators I can detect are centered on the preservation of power and property. It may be my instinctive cynicism talking, but taken together – the broken trust of our connection, the demise of perceived and real accountability from the episcopacy down the line to the local church, the mischaracterizations of opposing opinions and outright dishonesty displayed by some clergy on social media (from both, or should I say, all sides), and the cancerous preoccupation with one another’s sexual, financial, and leadership sins – the people called Methodist need to acknowledge that we have brought about our own downfall, and it is for us to forge a Christ-like resolution.

I have conceded already that I cannot spout off pearls of scriptural wisdom from memory and in the appropriate context of the conversation, but I know what self-serving hypocrisy looks like. We have met the enemy, and it is us.

“To switch sides and to keep being disruptive.” That’s a direct quote from a Facebook post discussing the impact of the Wesleyan Covenant Association’s announced intention to remain in the current UMC for the foreseeable future. It was written by someone who, presumably at least, advocates for the full inclusion changes to the United Methodist Book of Discipline (BOD). What struck me most profoundly was the assumption that the decision to maintain a presence in the UMC was specifically to prolong the enmity and name-calling. Seems to me that could just as easily be said about those who support full inclusion. Let’s not forget that much of the mistrust between us stems from some in leadership of the church who have chosen to stop enforcing the accountable practices of connectionalism (and in many cases endorsing the disobedience). That is their choice and privilege, to be sure, but let’s stop villainizing those who disagree as mere malcontents. I respect anyone who feels called to advocate for that which they hold sacred. Please do not presume to understand the extent of the mistrust that has overwhelmed many who have advocated for following the discipline as it was written and agreed to by the 2019 General Conference. The human sexuality debate, while in and of itself a very real and painful point of disagreement, is but a symptom of the underlying broken confidence in our accountable covenants.

Whether a clergy member, lay person or entire congregation chooses to stay or go says more to me about the breathability of the atmosphere of accountability they detect than it does about their views on the presenting disease of “intolerance.” While there are certainly impassioned debates from sincere petitioners raging around the question of full inclusion, for some of us the greater concern is less one of theology than it is one of integrity re the covenants we have already made.

One outrage piled on another. That is how we’ve been conditioned to interpret the almost daily breaking news flashes about the chaos in the United Methodist Church. With each new development, one side or the other does their best imitation of Captain Renault from the classic film Casablanca. The scene is brilliant in the sheer duplicity of it all. Renault shuts down Rick’s café when he discovers that gambling has been going on for some time:

Renault: “I am shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here.”

Waiter: “Your winnings, sir.”

Renault: “Oh, thank you very much.”

The parallel is almost too delicious not to be shared. One of the triggers for feigned indignance is the recent announcement of the withdrawal of support for the Protocol for Reconciliation and Grace through Separation by the very signatories who helped to craft the document, one of whom is now the President of the Council of Bishops of the United Methodist Church. Please tell me that no one is surprised by this.

Some of those advocating for the traditionalist agenda are really put out by this step. Others are cynical, while some may, in fact, be surprised (or, at least, caught off guard). Some of those who advocate for the progressive and centrist movements are trying not to allow their glee to be too obvious, with varying degrees of success. The fact of the matter, as I see it, is that the traditionalists got hoisted on their own petard. Indeed, 20/20 hindsight has led me to conclude that the traditional folks never held any substantive leverage or advantage. From the moment the tolerance for pastoral and episcopal disobedience became the rule rather than the exception, the Book of Discipline stalwarts have been outflanked, despite brief periods of smugness when the Protocol was agreed to. Here are some examples:

• In what universe did it make sense for the people demanding that everyone play by the existing rules already agreed to make the decision to walk away? The gift of acquiescence was a very noble thing for the traditionalists to do, but I fail to see how it has worked to their advantage, while simultaneously granting carte blanche to the progressives and centrists. How quickly the victim status (but not the momentum) shifted from the progressive to the traditionalists.
• When I was a young lad, I learned the hard way that if you want to be in someone’s club, you need to follow the rules. Any refusal to abide by the rules was met with a succinct “Get out!” (Though, come to think about it, there were always exceptions made for our “best” friends, even if they broke the rules everyone else had agreed to follow.) I also learned at a young age that once trust is broken, even among children on the playground, it is very difficult to restore it to the intensity it may have originally enjoyed. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
• The prospect of 25 million dollars “seed money” may have turned some heads, but you can’t spend promises. When did traditionalists lose sight of the fact that those in power (read the Council of Bishops) were not going to bring about their own irrelevance by allowing large swaths of the disaffected to leave the mothership with their pockets full? That’s as naïve as believing that the Congress will enact term limits. I mean, really? There just aren’t that many Mikhail Gorbachev’s out there.
• The arguments against a virtual General Conference – that it isn’t possible for all of the conferences around the globe to have access to the required technology – never felt legitimate to me. Could we not have created comprehensive documentation that those deprived of internet access could have studied and then submitted a paper ballot with their choices? It isn’t a perfect solution, but it largely works for many American electoral precincts (with acknowledgement of the potential for fraud.) To stall the resolution of the most consequential debate in Methodist church history in the pursuit of unattainable participation perfection is just strategic manipulation, laid bare.

In the time it has taken me to write this piece, the hue and cry has gone out from traditionalist corners that “the clock is ticking,” and “the doors open to disaffiliation are quickly closing.” That is true, certainly, but endless “poor me’s” about it on Facebook only strikes a match in a room filled with vaporized carbon-based fuel – it’s gonna’ explode! Cue the mock surprise. Instead of clear-headed thinking about disaffiliation, what will result is that a lot of small churches without the capital reserves to “pay the piper” will just die from ambivalence and spiritual neglect. Dystopian prophecy aside, the result is the same: the United Methodist Church (continuing or otherwise) will adopt the progressive agenda because there won’t be enough traditionalists left in the denomination to influence the vote.

Game. Set. Match. Traditionalists are being forced into radical, risky decisions in order to affiliate with a church they believe (and expect) has gravitas. The legislative solution that the Protocol offered was dead from the start, but hope sprang eternal. Duplicity is offensive but should not come as a bolt from the blue. Remember that the “United Methodist Church” is a structure of human creation, and since the Fall of Man humanity has proven time and again that integrity is often a charade. But I do believe there is a pathway that traditionalists can follow that will take them out of this morass (just know that it won’t be desirable or easy.)

The only remaining options for churches to exercise if they wish to become part of the Global Methodist Church (or any other evangelical denomination) is to pay the annual conference whatever their asking price is for leaving with the assets held under the trust clause, or to simply walk away from the UMC, leaving them the building and whatever fungible assets that exist. I warned you that you wouldn’t like it.

Before you dismiss the idea let me walk you through my thought process.

• Continuing to fight is a zero-sum game. In fact, it better resembles a scorched-earth mentality. There comes a time when the only responsible choice is to move on. Traditionalists need to acknowledge the very limited options left to them by the established power base (however Machiavellian their behavior may be) and choose whether to adapt to the coming liberalization of church doctrine or to make the strongest statement possible about their unwillingness to conform by simply handing the keys over to the conference trustees.
• The fighting (or should it be called “open season”?) is also becoming the cause of friendships and professional respect cultivated over years being torn to shreds because “they can’t say that and expect me not to respond” is not a mature affect. Stop engaging in the vitriol – all sides – and act like adults who agree to disagree. Wouldn’t John Wesley be pleased?
• What this will require is for pastors and laity alike to make a radical shift in their sense of ownership of the assets of the church. Once you tithe or donate you transfer control of the asset (money, land, finished goods, etc.) to the recipient. It is no longer the property of the benefactor, and to try to exercise non-existent rights is a waste of time and resources. Whatever is held by the church is only through the grace of God, so let Him deal with the ownership debate.
• Traditionalists (and, frankly, centrists and progressives) will need to adopt a Wesleyan attitude about church growth. God places a call on our lives to love one another, not to create and subsequently defend a leviathan-like institution. We can do that best when we are no longer shackled by the yoke that binds us to the property we call “the church.” Making the choice of what is right for each pastor and congregation must be made independent of the material components that we allow to define us too often. In short, traditionalists should coalesce around the mission they believe God has called them to, regardless of where they gather for worship and fellowship.
• Of course, pastors will shoulder the greater risk of such a move. Consider that the economic security of their families will be under assault, particularly when they need to find housing, healthcare coverage and a pension plan. It should not be lost on anyone that pastors will need to weigh their convictions and passions against their own financial health, and some may decide that they simply cannot choose to leave. Traditionalists should anticipate this and love those pastors and their families enough to respect their choice.

In purely practical terms, the nut of this approach is to get comfortable with church planting, even if that means moving to a rented space with no stained-glass windows or any of the trappings of tradition. For the annual conferences that must assume the maintenance and tax liabilities of the empty churches, this will likely result in some financial stress that may be substantial. For the progressives and centrists, cue the mock surprise.

This may terrify (or, at least, intimidate) all concerned – and it should, but God has created us for the boldness required to take this action in this time and place. Waiting for the 2024 General Conference is not a recommended strategy – it is pure complacency when facing this season of difficult decision-making.

The chaos and rancor in the church is no longer dirty laundry we can try to conceal. We’ve graduated to mainstream media awareness, which means every person with internet access has a chance to express their opinions. If the tone and tenor of the Facebook traffic I’ve seen is an indication of true sentiments, we have, sadly, progressed far beyond the notion of restoring trust in one another. Posting an opinion, regardless of how erstwhile it is intended, has become an invitation for clergy and laity to demonstrate how little regard we have for one another. Cue the mock surprise.

Whatever a congregation and/or pastor chooses, it will telegraph to the community they serve their sense of hope (or lack of it). Wouldn’t it be best if what they broadcast was a renewed commitment to the local mission by demonstrating to all that being the church is not constrained by property lines and impressive worship centers? Who knows, maybe new disciples will even be made. Cue the real surprise.